CPU choice

L

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
CPU recommendations and why please.

I am building a new gaming rig. I like things on the quiet side, not planning on OCing the CPU.

I already have an ASUS Z97-E mobo and 16GB of DDR3 PC1600 RAM.

I am looking at two CPUs.

The i5 4690 3.5G
And the i5 4690S 3.2G

Please advise.
 
If power consumption is is important to you, then I suppose the 4690s. Other than that they're virtually identical, aside from the obvious clock speed differences, which you may not notice much.
 
I wouldn't worry about the stock voltage as both chips will downclock and undervolt when not running at full capacity. Personally, I'd get the 4690 as it has a higher clockspeed.
 
Well, the 4690 is an 84W CPU and the 4690S is 65W if my info is correct.
Newegg has them at the same price. I just know very little about the S and if there is something that would make it desirable over the faster clocked 4690?

For all I know, the S may perform just as well, maybe a higher turbo boost speed.
 
The only difference is the TDP, but that's under a max load anyway. So if you're not going to run it 100% load 24/7, you might as well get the higher clockspeed part, IMO. I suppose if you are running it 100% load 24/7, the extra 19W savings might make a difference, but for gaming, higher clockspeed wins out.

Might also want to look at Xeons. Some of them are relatively cheap (compared to i7's) and have HT.
 
The only difference is the S is 3.2 GHz and uses less power, both turbo to 3.9 everything else is the same
the S might save you $5 - 10 per year
 
zaniix said:
The only difference is the S is 3.2 GHz and uses less power, both turbo to 3.9 everything else is the same
the S might save you $5 - 10 per year
Click to expand...

That's only if you're running full throttle 24/7/365. If you're CPU is idle most of the time they will both be running 800mhz/.08V or whatever the low value is on speedstep.

For a gaming computer, I'd get the one with higher clockspeed.
 
OP,
I know you did not intend on overclocking your chips (thus your choice for the non-K variants of those particular models) - but keep in mind that the K variants do tend to hold their value over time far better than their non-K brothers and are usually quite a bit easier to flip when that time comes around for a platform refresh.
 
zaniix said:
the S might save you $5 - 10 per year
Click to expand...

Yeah, no fucking way.

If both CPUs were running 24/7/365 at full TDP and your electricity rate is $.10/kWh, you would save $16.64 per year with the S version. Unless you're Folding or something, you're not coming anywhere near that with a desktop PC.

My whole 4690K system draws ~20W at idle.
 
Before we discuss anything, I'd like to point out that Intel usually ropes the i5 and i7 together in terms of TDP, even though there's a 15w difference between the two:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7963/...iew-core-i7-4790-i5-4690-and-i3-4360-tested/2

Compare the i5 4690 (84w TDP) with the i7 4770k (84w TDP), and notice that huge gap in power consumption? Yup, you guessed it: Intel's i5 4690 TDP rating SHOULD ALREADY BE 70w, so it's just lazy numbering to create artificial product segmentation. There's really very little power consumption difference between the 4690 and the 4690S.



Further, I can't believe we're discussing power savings here between S and regular Intel processors. They don't exist. You sacrifice multithreaded performance for that SLIGHTLY lower peak power.

First: the vast majority of users need quick, short bursts of compute (like loading a webpage). Once the event is over, your CPU goes back to idle. At idle, ALL Intel CPUs use the same amount of power.

Second: if you actually have a heavy load for an extended period of time, if you have a competent CPU cooler it won't notice the difference with 5-10w higher power. But you WILL notice the faster completion time of the task with the 4690.

Because the task complete faster on the 4690, the CPU can go back to idle faster than the 4690S, which means the *overall* power consumption of both processors is similar.

The only time you will see noticeably higher power from the 4690 is if you load the machine 24/7 (but you will also see higher performance).
 
Last edited:
kirbyrj said:
That's only if you're running full throttle 24/7/365. If you're CPU is idle most of the time they will both be running 800mhz/.08V or whatever the low value is on speedstep.

For a gaming computer, I'd get the one with higher clockspeed.
Click to expand...

But the gaming computer is more likely to be running harder most of the time.

I am sorry but I find your 24/7 logic faulty. No matter which CPU I choose that CPU will be working pretty hard most of the time that it's on. You say they both throttle down but it can't be all the way up or all the way down like an on/off switch. It's a dynamic relationship which rises and falls as the CPU load rises and falls. The more it rises the more the benefit. If both cap at 3.9 with Turbo then the S is running cooler at 3.9 then the straight 4690 and that is good news, less potential for faults due to heat.

Knowing the two CPUs have the same max capability but that one can do so with less demand and generate less heat is a certain feather in the 4690S's cap.

Thanx for the info guys.
 
atp1916 said:
OP,
I know you did not intend on overclocking your chips (thus your choice for the non-K variants of those particular models) - but keep in mind that the K variants do tend to hold their value over time far better than their non-K brothers and are usually quite a bit easier to flip when that time comes around for a platform refresh.
Click to expand...

Thanx, but like good books, I don't sell old computer parts.
 
defaultluser, are you telling me the i5 4690S consumes more then 65W peak power?
 
OH, and to clarify, did someone say that the 4690S sacrificed hyperthreading? And did the person mean that the 4690 supports hyperthreading while the S does not?
 
lcpiper said:
But the gaming computer is more likely to be running harder most of the time.

I am sorry but I find your 24/7 logic faulty. No matter which CPU I choose that CPU will be working pretty hard most of the time that it's on. You say they both throttle down but it can't be all the way up or all the way down like an on/off switch. It's a dynamic relationship which rises and falls as the CPU load rises and falls. The more it rises the more the benefit. If both cap at 3.9 with Turbo then the S is running cooler at 3.9 then the straight 4690 and that is good news, less potential for faults due to heat.

Knowing the two CPUs have the same max capability but that one can do so with less demand and generate less heat is a certain feather in the 4690S's cap.

Thanx for the info guys.
Click to expand...

My point is that the only reason to get the S chip is if you're looking to save a couple bucks in a 24/7 environment. Since you're not using it in a 24/7 environment, you might as well get the one that has more performance.

The "boost" only works for one core. If you are pushing the CPU in a multi threaded environment (modern games), you'd want the one with the higher top end speed (e.g. 3.5Ghz vs. 3.2Ghz) for more performance because that's the speed all 4 cores will run at when maxed out. The reality is you're never going to have a situation with faults due to heat because you aren't OCing them. It will likely run for years with the stock cooler either way...likely you could run both passive with the right cooler.

Bottom line, there's absolutely no reason to get the S version for a gaming computer. If you have an extremely small case with minor airflow (e.g. AIO) or situation that requires significantly less heat, you should be looking at the "T" chips since they are only 35W (e.g. Alienware Alpha).
 
lcpiper said:
OH, and to clarify, did someone say that the 4690S sacrificed hyperthreading? And did the person mean that the 4690 supports hyperthreading while the S does not?
Click to expand...

Neither one has HT. Have to step up to the i7 to get it on the quad core chips.
 
lcpiper said:
defaultluser, are you telling me the i5 4690S consumes more then 65W peak power?
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that the 4690 consumes only 70-75w of power. And I'm trying to convince you that you couldn't tell the difference between 65 and 75w if you tried..

I was simply saying you can't compare the TDP alone because Intel is lazy: they take a group of processors and mark them as as the same TDP. But since they all have different clock speeds, they end up using different amounts of power.

I'd go into detail, but I get the feeling from your reply that you've already made up your mind. Have fun with your imaginary power savings.
 
kirbyrj said:
Neither one has HT. Have to step up to the i7 to get it on the quad core chips.
Click to expand...

So if neither of the i5 chips I am considering have hyperthreading then games that can leverage multicore CPUs will not use more then one core anyway?

And that would mean, if I understand correctly, that your statement;
The "boost" only works for one core. If you are pushing the CPU in a multi threaded environment (modern games), you'd want the one with the higher top end speed (e.g. 3.5Ghz vs. 3.2Ghz) for more performance because that's the speed all 4 cores will run at when maxed out.
Click to expand...
Isn't correct, because these chips can only use one core for a single application, no multithreading, "boost" will work just fine, and regardless of any power or heat considerations the 4690 won't run any faster then the 4490S would.

I mean if I am getting this correctly, you need an i7 to take advantage of any multicore supported software.
 
defaultluser said:
No, I'm saying that the 4690 consumes only 70-75w of power. And I'm trying to convince you that you couldn't tell the difference between 65 and 75w if you tried..

I was simply saying you can't compare the TDP alone because Intel is lazy: they take a group of processors and mark them as as the same TDP. But since they all have different clock speeds, they end up using different amounts of power.

I'd go into detail, but I get the feeling from your reply that you've already made up your mind. Have fun with your imaginary power savings.
Click to expand...

I don't give a fuck about power savings within the constraints of this query.

I only care about power consumption in it's regard for generating heat. What you are telling me is that I could take two identical computers with the exceptions of the CPUs, run them under a demanding game, and there will be no difference in the heat generated. My computer room will not get any warmer with one or the other. Neither will peek a threshold and cause a fan to spin at a higher rate causing more noise then the other would.

I have not already made up my mind, if I had I wouldn't be wasting my time trying to make sense of statements that don't make sense.

Do not assume that I don't know shit just because I don't know the latest details and come to ask some questions. I am not completely ignorant. I was overclocking, water cooling, modding and living in geekland for a very long time. I am just out of date with the newer series of CPUs.

Thanx for your help. Don't let the door hit you in the ass.
 
Look, you have no grasp on how little a difference 20 watts is, outside of the internals of a laptpop. You need to learn abou thermodynamics to discover that for yourself. Without context you cannot understand the world around you.

But I can give you a quick summary: the high-end enthusiast coolers you can buy at Newegg are specced to handle a thermal load far beyond the 140w peak of Intel E-series processors, and the 125w of FX-series. They account for overclock headroom, which pushes power consumption up to 200w and beyond.

If your cooler is overkill in terms of thermal conductivity and airflow (rated for several hundred watts), then if you're using if for something down in the 60-80w range, it's only a few percent difference between those power levels. They won't have much of an effect on the core temperature, as your cooler has more than enough heat conduction to handle that light load chhange.

AS to the context of how hot 20w of power is? Well, look at microwaves. Do they sell 1020w, 1040w, 1060w, 1080w models? HELL NO!

They sell 900w, 1000w, 1100w, 1200w microwaves BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN less than 100w when you are heating up something to cooking temperatures. The cook times between 1100w and 1200w microwaves are only around 5% faster in my experience ~15 seconds on a 4 minute frozen dinner. If you could compare an 1100w with an 1120w microwave, that would mean that 5% reduction in cook time is now just a 1% reduction in coook times. That's only 3 seconds improvement - are you really going to notice that?


This goes double for heating up the air in your room, because it's much larger total heat capacity. electric Room heaters typically go for 1500 watts, because anything less than 800-900w wouldn't heat up the room noticably. 20w is lost in the noise when it comes to the effects on room temperature -it takes a difference of 50-100w for you to really notice anything.
 
Last edited:
lcpiper said:
So if neither of the i5 chips I am considering have hyperthreading then games that can leverage multicore CPUs will not use more then one core anyway?

And that would mean, if I understand correctly, that your statement;

Isn't correct, because these chips can only use one core for a single application, no multithreading, "boost" will work just fine, and regardless of any power or heat considerations the 4690 won't run any faster then the 4490S would.

I mean if I am getting this correctly, you need an i7 to take advantage of any multicore supported software.
Click to expand...

No, if a game is multi-threaded it means it will utilize more than one core, hence, if you're going to want the CPU that has the highest clockspeed when the extra cores are being used (3.5Ghz for 4690 and 3.2 for 4690S...4690 is higher...you'd want that one). Hyperthreading (i7) just allows the chip to see individual cores as two cores, hence, you have the 4 Core/4 thread (i5) vs. 4 core/8 thread (i7) discussion. I don't know where you're getting the one core for a single application thing. Single applications can use as many cores as they are designed to use. Older software/games were only designed to use 1 core, so higher single core efficiency is valued. But in modern games, I'd want the highest 4 core speed all things being equal.

The TDP value of 84W vs. 65W is unlikely to be an issue as the raw difference of 19W isn't enough difference to require any additional cooling. This isn't an AMD 8320e (95W) vs. 8350 (125W) vs. 9590 (200W) type of situation. Since you aren't OCing, the stock cooler would work fine with either of them. Likely its the same cooler for both parts.
 
Thank You for explaining the difference between hyperthreading and multithreaded.

For the last hour I had Task Manager open and on the Performance Tab. I played several of my normal games, World of Tanks, MechWarrior Online, Skyrim, Fallout 3, and I saw distinct examples of what you were talking about on my Razer Blade laptop. It was really cool to see Skyrim using all four cores with Hyperthreading. I am building my new desktop and was going to put an i5 in it but I am doing this in time with the release of Fallout 4, I can't image Bethesda won't leverage the power of the i7s since Skyrim already does.

You have helped be decide against an i5 and I'll be looking at i7 cpus instead.
 
Defaultuser, 40 Watts was an average incandescent light bulb and it would burn the shit out of your fingers if you grabbed it with your bare hand while it was on. 20 Watts may be half that, but it's not nothing and it is measurable.

It's also immaterial at this point as the discussion has moved to a successful end.
 
lcpiper said:
Defaultuser, 40 Watts was an average incandescent light bulb and it would burn the shit out of your fingers if you grabbed it with your bare hand while it was on. 20 Watts may be half that, but it's not nothing and it is measurable.

It's also immaterial at this point as the discussion has moved to a successful end.
Click to expand...

It's measurable, but insignificant when put into context.

You don't understand the difference in heat capacity in the MASSIVE air of the room versus heat capacity of a tiny light bulb, and the temperature differential that entails. The lightbub has trouble radiating heat since there are no fins or forced airflow, so it grows to a very high temperature (stored energy) in order that it can radiate 40w of heat constantly to the surrounding air.

Thermodynamics dictates that there must be X temperature differential between the bulb skin and it's surroundings before it can start to radiate energy at the desired 40w rate that the filament is generating waste heat at. before you hit that desired temperature differential, the heat energy generated by the filament remains trapped in the bulb, raising the temperature untill it hits tht target X over the ambient.

That massive temperature differential compared to your hand forces energy at a very high rate into your hand when you stupidly touch the light bub, and you get burned. But you only get burned because the heat was concentrated on a very small area of your skin, in a very short period of time. That same heat distributed into the air is almost unnoticeable.

But I doubt you'lll read any of this shit. Enjoy your life always knowing the answer before you ask the question.
 
Last edited:
You know not who you challenge.

Would you be right no matter the insignificance?

Or wrong like a stupid ++++?
 
lcpiper said:
You know not who you challenge.

Would you be right no matter the insignificance?

Or wrong like a stupid ++++?
Click to expand...

Whatever you say wonder child. Are you going to defy gravity as your next superpower?

I notice you didn't contradict anything in my post.
 
Might I add.....if your building a gaming computer....I'd assume there's going to be a dedicated GPU in the system.....the heat that GPU puts out is going to dwarf anything a CPU can put out. Squabbling over 20w is like billionaires fighting for a penny...it doesn't make much sense. Grab a decent i7 or even an i5 and be done with it, majority of modern games are GPU bound anyways, making this argument over a couple hundred mhz even more senseless.
 
lcpiper said:
Thank You for explaining the difference between hyperthreading and multithreaded.

For the last hour I had Task Manager open and on the Performance Tab. I played several of my normal games, World of Tanks, MechWarrior Online, Skyrim, Fallout 3, and I saw distinct examples of what you were talking about on my Razer Blade laptop. It was really cool to see Skyrim using all four cores with Hyperthreading. I am building my new desktop and was going to put an i5 in it but I am doing this in time with the release of Fallout 4, I can't image Bethesda won't leverage the power of the i7s since Skyrim already does.

You have helped be decide against an i5 and I'll be looking at i7 cpus instead.
Click to expand...

You can also look at the E3 Xeons (v3 is 1150) as they are essentially i7 CPU's usually a little cheaper than the similarly clocked i7. Plus you can get them with or without the IGP.
 
USMCGrunt said:
Might I add.....if your building a gaming computer....I'd assume there's going to be a dedicated GPU in the system.....the heat that GPU puts out is going to dwarf anything a CPU can put out. Squabbling over 20w is like billionaires fighting for a penny...it doesn't make much sense. Grab a decent i7 or even an i5 and be done with it, majority of modern games are GPU bound anyways, making this argument over a couple hundred mhz even more senseless.
Click to expand...

My house has wooden floors or tile throughout. My case is an older Lian-Li 343B Cube Server case. When I first built it my wife would hear the fans from across the house like a constant reminder that I was gaming and she would nag like hell. I water cooled the CPU and video card and quietened down the system and she stopped her nagging even tho she bitched at the expense.

Hell, I even had the radiator special made from Hardware Labs(If I remember correct, from the Philipines). You remember about 10 years ago, most radiators like the Black Ice ones were all duel pass, inlet and outlet at the top of the radiator. Hardware Labs came out with a single pass radiator where the inlet was at the top but the outlet was at the bottom across from it. I reasoned that I could add additional inlets and outlets top and bottom and ordered it made. Didn't costs that much more really. Added a pair small male to male adapters and mounted the pumps side by side off the bottom, one loop to the video card one to the CPU, a T and filliport off the highest length which was the return from the CPU.

I was very happy as each had a dedicated loop, a shared radiator, and even if a pump failed enough water would continue to move to make catastrophic failure unlikely. Besides, it was unique and that counts.

The AC in my house is also an issue, the duct work won't support a 5 ton unit, the 4 ton I have can't keep up with the Arizona heat sometimes. My wife says she is cold all the time and while I am gaming my computer room is generally hotter then I like. Pisses me off to break into a sweat just sitting on my ass gaming. It's a constant struggle between my wife and I fighting over the thermostat and one damn degree on the setting.

When it comes to selecting components and configuring systems, you can only do what you can do. You can buy this one or that, change this setting or that. And then it has to go into this room, on this floor, and all I can do is try to choose wisely.

You can say the difference is unnoticeable or that something else will overpower it. I have the choices I have made, I already have an ASUS STRIX GTX 9600 for the GPU. I know it will run hotter then the CPU, but everything adds up to the total whatever that will come to. Everything counts and it counts to whatever degree it will and I am doing whatever I can to see it lowered in noise level and heat level.

So USMC_Grunt, you can be correct and you can also see that what I am talking about still matters.

Now I have to address this annoying arrogant ass that can't leave a conversation he is no longer welcome in.
 
kirbyrj said:
You can also look at the E3 Xeons (v3 is 1150) as they are essentially i7 CPU's usually a little cheaper than the similarly clocked i7. Plus you can get them with or without the IGP.
Click to expand...

Kirby I look at them, Thank You.
 
USMCGrunt said:
Might I add.....if your building a gaming computer....I'd assume there's going to be a dedicated GPU in the system.....the heat that GPU puts out is going to dwarf anything a CPU can put out. Squabbling over 20w is like billionaires fighting for a penny...it doesn't make much sense. Grab a decent i7 or even an i5 and be done with it, majority of modern games are GPU bound anyways, making this argument over a couple hundred mhz even more senseless.
Click to expand...

Gonna qualify the GPU-bound portion of this comment with an Anand Bench of the 4570S vs. the 4790K.

Scroll all the way down to the gaming benchmarks and note that the 4570S is a 2.9ghz base clocked 4C/4T part.
 
defaultluser said:
Whatever you say wonder child. Are you going to defy gravity as your next superpower?

I notice you didn't contradict anything in my post.
Click to expand...

I love guys like you. I asked for help, I also indicated that I don't need yours anymore. But you wouldn't just leave, you needed to insult me a few times first. You have an ego your intellect can't cover for.

So you want me to respond, fine.

defaultluser, I am past time I should be getting ready for work this morning.

You reread this thread down to the point I thanked people for helping me see, that I should just stick to an i7. I didn't ignore everything you said as it was your comment here;
You sacrifice multithreaded performance for that SLIGHTLY lower peak power.
Click to expand...
... followed by my questioning of multithreading and hyperthreading and Kirbyj's explanations that helped me reach my decision.

My choice is made, you were part of it. Now I am just replying to those who would also extend advice mostly to show I appreciate it enough to take a moment and reply. But the deed is all but done. I even Thank You for your part in it. Good day defaultluser.
 
USMCGrunt said:
Might I add.....if your building a gaming computer....I'd assume there's going to be a dedicated GPU in the system.....the heat that GPU puts out is going to dwarf anything a CPU can put out. Squabbling over 20w is like billionaires fighting for a penny...it doesn't make much sense. Grab a decent i7 or even an i5 and be done with it, majority of modern games are GPU bound anyways, making this argument over a couple hundred mhz even more senseless.
Click to expand...

Oh and USMCGrunt, Anadtech's statement that "majority of modern games are GPU bound anyways", carries less weight if a title you really want to enjoy does make heavy use of the CPU. From what I can tell Bethesda's do, I always enjoy them, and it's Fallout 4 coming out in just a couple of months that is driving this entire rebuild.

I learned long ago to build for your greatest requirements, not for what you do most of the time. My gaming machine should be able to play any title I want, without actually taxing the machine too hard, and do so at 1080P resolution with beautiful graphics. In the age of 4K computing that shouldn't be too hard a task to meet.
 
lcpiper said:
Oh and USMCGrunt, Anadtech's statement that "majority of modern games are GPU bound anyways", carries less weight if a title you really want to enjoy does make heavy use of the CPU. From what I can tell Bethesda's do, I always enjoy them, and it's Fallout 4 coming out in just a couple of months that is driving this entire rebuild.

I learned long ago to build for your greatest requirements, not for what you do most of the time. My gaming machine should be able to play any title I want, without actually taxing the machine too hard, and do so at 1080P resolution with beautiful graphics. In the age of 4K computing that shouldn't be too hard a task to meet.
Click to expand...

I agree! and Fallout 4 is one of my reasons as well.

Imagine if we all bought cars to meet our minimum needs how boring and utterly pathetic most cars on the road would be. Sure some people don't care anything at all about cars, but I would be so sad if it were that way for everyone.
 
lcpiper said:
The AC in my house is also an issue, the duct work won't support a 5 ton unit, the 4 ton I have can't keep up with the Arizona heat sometimes. My wife says she is cold all the time and while I am gaming my computer room is generally hotter then I like. Pisses me off to break into a sweat just sitting on my ass gaming. It's a constant struggle between my wife and I fighting over the thermostat and one damn degree on the setting.
Click to expand...

Thank you for finally being honest in this thread about why you are fucking splitting hairs. I'll agree with your intensity if we can't find any other massive power hogs in your system.

Now that you're no-longer being evasive, we can actually solve your problem. Please list your complete system configuration (including PSU and monitors and sound system), and I'll try to help you get your power consumption down.

Also, please list the games that you play. You may be incredibly surprised that you can game quite capably on a 35w Core i3, and those use a whole lot less power.
 
Last edited:
You have to waterboard your customers sometimes to extract those non-functional requirements.. ;)
 
Wow :p

clip-art-bugs-bunny-210336.jpg
 
Last edited:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117316

Look at that one...80W, no IGP (since I'll assume you'll have a discrete card for gaming) and basically a Haswell refresh i7.

That being said, the "best" chip you can get is probably a 4790k. Even though it's a "K" part, it has the highest stock frequency of the 1150 parts with a 4Ghz stock and 4.4Ghz turbo. I had one for a while before I moved it to my brother's computer and I ran it stock all the time as it was plenty fast. The non "K" 4790 is only 3.5Ghz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top